Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

De-dupe ReconnectApp in the persisted requests queue #47913

Merged

Conversation

gedu
Copy link
Contributor

@gedu gedu commented Aug 23, 2024

Details

we have 4 places that can trigger the ReconnectApp:

  1. NetInfo.addEventListener
  2. Middleware: recheckConnection
  3. NetworkConnection.triggerReconnectionCallbacks(‘Pusher re-subscribed to private user channel’);
  4. new one above: Interval recheckNetworkConnection

so, In the PersistedRequest file, within the save function, I would add a check to see if a ReconnectApp already exists in the persistedRequest queue. If it does, replace it with the new incoming ReconnectApp. This ensures we always maintain just one instance of it, with the most up-to-date information to send.

Fixed Issues

$ #47742
PROPOSAL: #47742 (comment)

Reference: #40059

Tests

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Base

  1. Use the app, try to use it on different situations where you think calls to ReconnectApp can happen

With failing requests

  1. Go to Settings -> Troubleshoot
  2. Enable Simulate failing network requests
  3. Go to Chat and send some messages or open different reports
  4. Then go back to Settings -> Troubleshoot and disable Simulate failing network requests
  5. Verify that one ReconnectApp shows up on the Network tab from DevTool

With failing requests

  1. Go to Settings -> Troubleshoot
  2. Enable Force offline
  3. Go to Chat and send some messages or open different reports
  4. Then go back to Settings -> Troubleshoot and disable Force offline
  5. Verify that one ReconnectApp shows up on the Network tab from DevTool

Offline tests

QA Steps

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
    • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
    • MacOS: Desktop
  • I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
  • I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
    • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
      • If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
    • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
    • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
  • I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
  • If any new file was added I verified that:
    • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
  • If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
single_reconnectApp_android.mp4
Android: mWeb Chrome
single_reconnectApp_androidWeb.mp4
iOS: Native
single_reconnectApp_ios.mp4
iOS: mWeb Safari
single_reconnectApp_iosWeb.mp4
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
single_reconnectApp_chrome.mp4
single_reconnectApp_safari.mp4
MacOS: Desktop
single_reconnectApp_desktop.mp4

@gedu gedu requested a review from a team as a code owner August 23, 2024 12:15
@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested review from sobitneupane and removed request for a team August 23, 2024 12:15
Copy link

melvin-bot bot commented Aug 23, 2024

@sobitneupane Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

@gedu
Copy link
Contributor Author

gedu commented Aug 23, 2024

@roryabraham PR created, ready for review

Copy link
Contributor

@roryabraham roryabraham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should:

  • create a more generalized framework for de-duping network requests in the request queue, as is done in this PR
  • add back all the other cases that were removed (i.e: if adding DeleteComment to the request queue, and there's any AddComment or UpdateComment for the same reportActionID, then just remove them all from the queue).
  • Add automated tests

Honestly, I was planning to do this myself because I have good historical context, but I just haven't prioritized it yet. I've finished up a lot of other stuff so might be able to proceed with #40059 now.

@gedu
Copy link
Contributor Author

gedu commented Aug 26, 2024

@roryabraham Nice, I like that idea of making it generic, I didn't know that other requests will need some strategy to fix it. Give that many requests require different strategies, for reconnectApp the structure you made for XXXXCommentdoesn't suit well. I would like to propose a single function that does what the request needs. Like checkAndFixConflictingRequest, which would return

{
  requests: [], // requests fixed
  persistAction: number, // if the requests sent can be saved into PersistedRequests
}

That way all is encapsulate into one place, into the request creation.
Maybe I can create the interface here, apply the reconnectApp strategy, add some tests. We can keep handling the XXXXComments in a separate PR

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor

roryabraham commented Aug 26, 2024

for reconnectApp the structure you made for XXXXCommentdoesn't suit well

Maybe I'm not seeing something, but I think it works fine for ReconnectApp:

  1. For getConflictingRequests, return an array of any other serialized ReconnectApp calls. In practice there should only ever be 0 or 1 at a time.
  2. For shouldSkipThisRequestOnConflict, return false because we do want the second ReconnectApp call to run.
  3. For handleConflictingRequest, do nothing because ReconnectApp doesn't involve any optimistic data that needs to be cleaned up.

@gedu
Copy link
Contributor Author

gedu commented Aug 27, 2024

@roryabraham I don’t want to add extra functions that aren’t needed. As an example, bulkRemove won’t work for the ReconnectApp because it deletes the instance, and the new one gets added in a different position. I want to update the requests.

Let’s say we have 10 items in the queue, and there is a ReconnectApp at position 4; a new one will be added. The getConflictingRequests will return the item from position 4. If I delete it and add the new one, it will be added at the end, resulting in a different position.

I think the main logic from your PR can be inside the checkAndFixConflictingRequest (we can change the name), and it will work the same way.
This function will return a flag to check if it should save or update the request:

if (persistAction.type === CONST.SAVE) {
    PersistedRequests.save(request);
} else if (persistAction.type === CONST.UPDATE) {
    PersistedRequests.update(persistAction.index, request);
}

(I'm updating a bit while thinking and finding more cases)

@gedu
Copy link
Contributor Author

gedu commented Aug 28, 2024

@roryabraham in my last commit It is your code, from the PR, using just one single function, and you can see how reconnectApp will work. What do you think?

Copy link
Contributor

@roryabraham roryabraham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall this looks like a good implementation. It's an improvement over what I had in that it identifies the main use-cases we'll have and implements them with better guard rails. Good job 👍🏼

NAB but I kind of prefer replace and push as the actions instead of update and save, because they're a bit more distinctive from each other and better reflect the queue structure.

Also, I'd love to add some automated tests for this before merging it. Thanks!

src/libs/Network/SequentialQueue.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/actions/Report.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/libs/actions/Report.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/types/onyx/Request.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@gedu
Copy link
Contributor Author

gedu commented Aug 29, 2024

@roryabraham Great approach! It definitely makes sense. I will work on ReconnectApp with the new conflictResolver. This way, each change has its own PR, which makes it easier to track and identify any regressions. After it, we can proceed with looking into the DELETE_COMMENT. What do you think?
I will start working on tests and the suggested changes.

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor

Sounds good 👍

@gedu gedu force-pushed the gedu/replace_reconnectapp_most_updated branch from e915009 to 615a8ba Compare August 29, 2024 17:23
@gedu
Copy link
Contributor Author

gedu commented Aug 30, 2024

@roryabraham I added a few tests, I'm giving a round of QA, what else I'm missing? what more tests do you think I should add?

# Conflicts:
#	src/libs/Network/SequentialQueue.ts
@gedu
Copy link
Contributor Author

gedu commented Sep 3, 2024

@roryabraham friendly ping

Copy link
Contributor

@roryabraham roryabraham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's great that we've added tests to cover the underlying logic in SequentialQueue, but I think it's also important that we add test coverage for App.reconnectApp that ensures that our implementation of checkAndFixConflictingRequest is working as expected in that case.

src/types/onyx/Request.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/types/onyx/Request.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/types/onyx/Request.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/types/onyx/Request.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/types/onyx/Request.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/unit/SequentialQueueTest.ts Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/unit/SequentialQueueTest.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
expect(PersistedRequests.getLength()).toBe(2);
});

it('should push two requests with conflict resolution and replace', () => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should also add a test that queues other unrelated requests and make sure that the replaced request is in the same index as the conflicting ReconnectApp request.

i.e: [OpenReport, AddComment, ReconnectApp, OpenReport]

becomes [OpenReport, AddComment, ReconnectApp, OpenReport], with ReconnectApp still at index 2 for example

Copy link
Contributor

roryabraham
roryabraham previously approved these changes Oct 1, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@roryabraham roryabraham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Otherwise I think this prettymuch LGTM 👍🏼

.eslintrc.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@gedu
Copy link
Contributor Author

gedu commented Oct 1, 2024

@mountiny @roryabraham how is testing going here?

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor

@mountiny @roryabraham how is testing going here?

At this point the PR LGTM, I'm just waiting for @shubham1206agra to review and test

@roryabraham
Copy link
Contributor

conflicts btw

callback: (val) => {
persistedRequests = val ?? [];

if (ongoingRequest && persistedRequests.length > 0) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gedu How did you ensure that this callback is called after other connection callback?

@mountiny
Copy link
Contributor

mountiny commented Oct 2, 2024

Please use this thread to try to wrap this PR up as soon as possible https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C05LX9D6E07/p1727863372595789

# Conflicts:
#	src/libs/Network/SequentialQueue.ts
Onyx.set(ONYXKEYS.PERSISTED_REQUESTS, requests).then(() => {

Onyx.multiSet({
[ONYXKEYS.PERSISTED_REQUESTS]: persistedRequests,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
[ONYXKEYS.PERSISTED_REQUESTS]: persistedRequests,
[ONYXKEYS.PERSISTED_REQUESTS]: requests,

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 2, 2024

@shubham1206agra
Copy link
Contributor

Reviewer Checklist

  • I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
  • I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
    • I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
    • I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
    • I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
  • I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
    • MacOS: Desktop
  • If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
  • I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
    • I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
    • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
    • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
  • I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • If a new component is created I verified that:
    • A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
    • All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
    • The file is named correctly
    • The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
    • The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
    • For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
    • Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
    • All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
    • The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
  • If any new file was added I verified that:
    • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
  • If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
  • I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
Screen.Recording.2024-10-02.at.7.52.57.PM.mov
iOS: Native
Screen.Recording.2024-10-02.at.8.08.16.PM.mov
iOS: mWeb Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-10-02.at.7.29.10.PM.mov
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
Screen.Recording.2024-10-02.at.7.21.33.PM.mov
Screen.Recording.2024-10-02.at.7.22.53.PM.mov
MacOS: Desktop
Screen.Recording.2024-10-02.at.7.57.29.PM.mov

@melvin-bot melvin-bot bot requested a review from marcochavezf October 2, 2024 14:40
@roryabraham roryabraham merged commit bad93d5 into Expensify:main Oct 2, 2024
17 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Contributor

OSBotify commented Oct 2, 2024

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 3, 2024

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/roryabraham in version: 9.0.44-0 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 4, 2024

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.0.44-12 🚀

platform result
🤖 android 🤖 failure ❌
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants